DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. Applicant’s submission of a response on 12/22/25 has been received and considered. In the response, Applicant amended claims 23-25 and canceled claims 15, 16 and 30. Therefore, claims 2, 7-14, 18, 23-29 are pending. Examiner notes that the claims filed on 12/22/25 and 7/23/25 recite claims 3-7 are cancelled but should recite that claims 3-6 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winther (pub. no. 20130162467) in view of McCartin (pub. no. 20200086200), Doherty (pub. no. 20100009780) and Savarese et al. (pub. no. 20090017944).
Regarding claim 7, Winther discloses a golf tournament tracking system, the system comprising: a processor; memory storing instructions that when executed by the processor perform operations of the golf tournament tracking system; and a management system configured to collect or receive location data with respect to a plurality of tracking modules carried by players competing in a golf tournament on a golf course, wherein the location data comprises or is used by the management system to log location coordinates of the respective tracking modules during play of the golf tournament and track locations of the players carrying the tracking modules (“According to another aspect of the disclosed system, a method and system for broadcasting data related to a golfing event is disclosed herein. In particular, golfing event related data, which may include, scorecard information, player positions on a golf course, playing conditions, and the like may be broadcast to others via a central computing device. Referring now to FIGS. 9A, a conceptual block diagram of a first computing device configured to record golfing event related data for broadcasting is shown. The first computing device 900 may include a processor 902, a memory 904 coupled to the processor 902, and a network interface 906 coupled to the processor 902 and the memory 904. The first computing device 900 may further include a location sensing component 908 that is capable of acquiring location data, such as GPS satellite data”, [0046];
“The communication network 999 may be any type of network, including but not limited to, a LAN, a WAN, a WLAN, the Internet, or any other communication network through which remote computers may communicate with one another. As shown in FIG. 9B, a second computing device, such as a server computer 1, may be connected to the communication network 999 such that the second computing device 1 may be configured to communicate with the first computing device 900 via the communication network 999.
The second computing device 1 includes a processor 2 and a memory 4 coupled to the processor 2, that is configured to store a plurality of scorecards and data associated with the scorecards. In addition, the second computing device 1 includes a network interface 6 and a scorecard management application 10, which may include one or more software modules for providing specific functionality to the server computer 1. The scorecard management module 10 may include a scorecard management module 12 for managing scorecards stored in a storage location, such as the memory 4 or an internal or remote database 42. In addition, the scorecard management application 10 may include a communication module 14 that is coupled to the memory 4 and the network interface 6, that can transmit one or more of the scorecards stored in a storage location to other computing devices, including but not limited to the first computing device 900. In some embodiments, the second computing device 1 may be configured to receive requests for one or more scorecards 1000 from one or more of a plurality of computing devices, including the golfer devices 900A-N, and third computing devices 950A-N, and in response to such requests, the communication module 14 may transmit a desired scorecard to the computing device that submitted the request of the scorecard, if the profile of the scorecard owner provides authorizes access thereto“, [0048] & [0049]).
Regarding claim 7, it is noted that Winther does not disclose the golf course is divided into geolocation zones, each zone including a predefined set of location coordinates, the management system is configured to track zone locations of the tracking modules during play of the golf tournament, and wherein holes of the golf course include a plurality of zones including a tee box zone, fairway zone, and green zone or determining hole changes based on the zones. McCartin however, teaches the golf course is divided into geolocation zones, each zone including a predefined set of location coordinates, the management system is configured to track zone locations of the tracking modules during play of the golf tournament, and wherein holes of the golf course include a plurality of zones including a tee box zone, fairway zone, and green zone and determining hole changes based on the zones (“Turning to FIG. 4, actions carried out by the device 100 to use GPS data to determine golf statistics in an embodiment are as follows. At F4a, the application program 118 carries out the process described in conjunction with FIG. 3. At F4b, when the application program 118 detects a shot, the application program 118 obtains the user's location from the GPS and records the location of the shot. At F4c, based on the GPS coordinates, the application program 118 uses the location of the recorded shot to determine the type of shot the user made (e.g., drive, putt, or chip). The application program 118 uses data from the server 122 to determine the hole on which the user is playing, where on that particular hole the user's recorded shot was made, and whether the hole is a par 3, 4, or 5. The application program 118 keeps different statistics based on both the length of the hole, and the type of recorded shot the golfer makes. To determine what type of shot the user made, the application program 118 uses data from the GPS unit 112 to determine whether the shot was made from the tee box, the green, or any other location on the course, such as a fairway or rough.
At F4d, when a recorded shot is made from inside the tee box, the application program 118 recognizes that the user has begun playing a new hole, compiles the statistics from the previous hole, and begins to record statistics for the new hole. Based on the par for each hole, the application program 118 automatically tracks different statistics (e.g., driving distance is not tracked on a par 3 hole, but is for par 4 and 5 holes). When a recorded shot is made from the tee box on a par 4 or 5 hole, the location of the subsequent recorded shot allows the application program 118 to determine statistics such as driving distance and accuracy automatically. When a recorded shot is made from the tee box on a par 3 hole, the location of the subsequent recorded shot, chip, or putt (as obtained from the GPS unit 112) allows the application program 118 to determine statistics such as greens in regulation automatically.
Thus in one non-limiting embodiment, preferably for the tee shot on par 4 or 5 holes (though the technology could be used to determine the length of any golf shot, the GPS data determines the location where the golfer performs the first true golf swing for the tee shot and then determines the location that the golfer performs his or her next second true golf swing which should be the location of the golf ball on the particular hole from the tee shot. The distance between these two locations provides the distance that the golf ball traveled from the golfer's tee shot and can be used for calculating driving statistics. As mentioned above, this calculating technique can be used to calculate the distance any golf shot achieved, through the use of the GPS location of the golfer at consecutive true golf swings.
When a recorded shot is made from a location other than the tee box or green, the application program 118 can determine whether the golfer's prior shot finished within or missed the fairway. This information allows the application program 118 to automatically compile statistics at the end of the round such as fairways hit, greens in regulation, tee shot dispersion, and approach shot dispersion. For shots within a pre-determined distance of the hole, the application will calculate chipping accuracy and scrambling as well.
When a recorded shot is made from a green and/or the location of record putts on the green, allows the application program 118 to keep track of putting statistics, such as up-and-downs and lengths of putts.
At F4e, after the first hole, when a recorded shot is made from the tee box, the application program 118 compiles the GPS location of all recorded shots made during the prior hole. This allows the application program 118 to determine all applicable golf statistics automatically. Possible statistics include, without limitation: approach distance, shot dispersion, fairways hit, greens in regulation, approach accuracy from different yardages, longest drive, and further personalized golfing statistics. Once the user completes the final hole of the course, the application program 118 tabulates statistics for the entire round, and can compare statistics between previously played rounds for the same golf course or other golf courses”, [0031] – [0036]).
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. Here both Winther and McCartin are directed to golf tracking systems. To include the zone based status tracking and automated statistics tracking based on those zones as taught by McCartin in the Winther invention would be to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the claimed invention to modify Winther to include the zone based tracking and statistics as taught by McCartin. To do so would increase the accuracy of the tracking.
In addition, it is noted that Winther does not disclose an application configured to communicate with the management system and to receive inputs from a user indicating occurrence of stroke events. Doherty however, teaches an application configured to communicate with the management system and to receive inputs from a user indicating occurrence of stroke events (“According to the present invention, a method of use includes an application user entering an unique user identification and secure login, such as by password, via a user interface on the GPS operable unit. Significantly, the present invention provides for user input of the first position or initial ball location with a prompt to mark your location, more particularly as the user is standing at the current ball location before hitting the ball. Then, another prompt requests the target location, such as by prompting whether the pin that marks the hole is the target. If the user enters YES, then he proceeds with the shot to hit the target. If the user enters no, then at the ball, the user marks the location of the ball and also enters a target area. Thereafter, the user hits the ball preferably toward the target area. Once the shot is completed and the ball lands in a next location or position, the user enters input for location information of the resulting shot to indicate whether the ball hit the target. If not, then the plays or shots continue until the user enters affirmatively and the hole is played out, if on a golf course. The user continues to mark the pin or next start location and a series of start-to-target entries are made until the hole is played out, including putts. After the user is finished with the round, the information entered is uploaded from the handheld GPS device to the server, where the data is stored for that user's unique identity and for the corresponding play location. Alternatively, the user-entered information and GPS location data are automatically transmitted to the server through the network. While in a preferred embodiment at the time of the invention provides for user-entered information and GPS data to be automatically transferred when the unit is connected to a network via USB and a computer for communication with the remote server, other means of transmission including wireless would be considered within the scope of the present invention”, [0037]).
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Here both Winther and Doherty are directed to golf data acquisition systems. To add the companion device of Doherty with its associated user interactivity to the Winther invention would be to combine a prior art element according to a known method to yield a predictable result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Winther invention to include a companion device and application that allowed the golfer to input scoring events that are subsequently uploaded to a server as taught by Doherty. To do so would be to cater to user preference thereby increasing the perceived value of the system.
Finaly, it is noted that Doherty does not disclose a separate tracking module that determines location data. Savarese however, discloses a separate tracking module that determines location data (“FIG. 7 shows a configuration of the apparatus where the GPS receiver and RFID transceiver are in separate housings and communicate with each other via wireless communication (e.g. Bluetooth). The housings can be worn on the belt or in the front pocket while golfing”, [0056]).
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Here both Doherty and Savarese are directed to sports tracking systems. To use the separate tracking module as taught by Savarese in the Doherty system would be to combine a prior art element according to a known method to yield a predictable result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Doherty to use a separate location device as taught by Savarese. To do so would enable the system to be configured to operate using different location technologies at different golf courses thereby increasing the potential market for the system.
Regarding claim 8 the combination of Winther and McCartin discloses when the management system marks or records a player group as in a tee box of a hole, the application is configured to advance the companion device assigned to that player group to the hole (McCartin: [0036]).
Regarding claim 10 the combination of Winther and McCartin discloses the stoke events include an input location of a player or ball of the player, and wherein the input location comprises or is used to determine an input zone corresponding to the zones of a respective hole (McCartin: [0031]-[0036]).
Regarding claim 11 the combination of Winther and McCartin discloses the management system is configured to compare a zone location of a tracking module assigned to the player at a time corresponding to the entry of the input location with the input zone (McCartin: [0031]-[0036]).
Claim(s) 23, 25 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winther (pub. no. 20130162467) in view of McCartin (pub. no. 20200086200) and Doherty (pub. no. 20100009780).
Regarding claim 23, Winther discloses a golf tournament tracking method, the method comprising: collecting or receiving, with a management system, location data with respect to tracking modules carried by players competing in a golf tournament on a golf course, the location data comprising or used by the management system to determine location coordinates of the tracking modules during play of the golf tournament; and tracking, with the management device, locations of the players carrying tracking modules using the location coordinates of the tracking modules during play of the golf tournament wherein the management system is configured to mark or record locations of players, player groups, or both ([0046], [0048] & [0049]).
Regarding claim 23, it is noted that Winther does not disclose the golf course is divided into geolocation zones, each zone including a predefined set of location coordinates, the management system is configured to track zone locations of the tracking modules during play of the golf tournament, and wherein holes of the golf course include a plurality of zones including a tee box zone, fairway zone, and green zone or determining hole changes based on the zones. McCartin however, teaches the golf course is divided into geolocation zones, each zone including a predefined set of location coordinates, the management system is configured to track zone locations of the tracking modules during play of the golf tournament, and wherein holes of the golf course include a plurality of zones including a tee box zone, fairway zone, and green zone and determining hole changes based on the zones ([0031] – [0036]).
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. Here both Winther and McCartin are directed to golf tracking systems. To include the zone based status tracking and automated statistics tracking based on those zones as taught by McCartin in the Winther invention would be to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the claimed invention to modify Winther to include the zone based tracking and statistics as taught by McCartin. To do so would increase the accuracy of the tracking.
In addition, it is noted that Winther does not disclose an application configured to communicate with the management system and to receive inputs from a user indicating occurrence of stroke events. Doherty however, teaches an application configured to communicate with the management system to receive inputs from a user indicating occurrence of stroke events ([0037]).
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Here both Winther and Doherty are directed to golf data acquisition systems. To add the companion device of Doherty with its associated user interactivity to the Winther invention would be to combine a prior art element according to a known method to yield a predictable result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Winther invention to include a companion device and application that allowed the golfer to input scoring events that are subsequently uploaded to a server as taught by Doherty. To do so would be to cater to user preference thereby increasing the perceived value of the system.
Regarding claim 25, Winther discloses A golf tournament tracking method, the method comprising: collecting or receiving, with a management system, location data with respect to tracking modules carried by players competing in a golf tournament on a golf course, the location data comprising or used by the management system to determine location coordinates of the tracking modules during play of the golf tournament; tracking, with the management device, locations of the players carrying tracking modules using the location coordinates of the tracking modules during play of the golf tournament ([0046], [0048] & [0049]).
Regarding claim 25, it is noted that Winther does not disclose the golf course is divided into geolocation zones, each zone including a predefined set of location coordinates, the management system is configured to track zone locations of the tracking modules during play of the golf tournament, and wherein holes of the golf course include a plurality of zones including a tee box zone, fairway zone, and green zone or determining hole changes based on the zones. McCartin however, teaches the golf course is divided into geolocation zones, each zone including a predefined set of location coordinates, the management system is configured to track zone locations of the tracking modules during play of the golf tournament, and wherein holes of the golf course include a plurality of zones including a tee box zone, fairway zone, and green zone and determining hole changes based on the zones ([0031] – [0036]).
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. Here both Winther and McCartin are directed to golf tracking systems. To include the zone based status tracking and automated statistics tracking based on those zones as taught by McCartin in the Winther invention would be to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the claimed invention to modify Winther to include the zone based tracking and statistics as taught by McCartin. To do so would increase the accuracy of the tracking.
In addition, it is noted that Winther does not disclose an application configured to communicate with the management system and to receive inputs from a user indicating occurrence of stroke events. Doherty however, teaches an application configured to communicate with the management system to receive inputs from a user indicating occurrence of stroke events ([0037]).
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Here both Winther and Doherty are directed to golf data acquisition systems. To add the companion device of Doherty with its associated user interactivity to the Winther invention would be to combine a prior art element according to a known method to yield a predictable result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Winther invention to include a companion device and application that allowed the golfer to input scoring events that are subsequently uploaded to a server as taught by Doherty. To do so would be to cater to user preference thereby increasing the perceived value of the system.
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Winther and McCartin disclose comparing, with the management system, a zone location of a tracking module assigned to the player at a time corresponding to the entry of the input location with the input zone (McCartin: [0036]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 18 and 24 are allowed.
Claims 9, 12-14 and 27-29 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Applicant is directed to the attached “Notice of References Cited” for additional relevant prior art. The Examiner respectfully requests the Applicant to fully review each reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE STEFAN GALKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1386. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-9 & 12-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Lewis can be reached at 571-272-7673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAWRENCE S GALKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715